Some clarity after the smoke and flames

An inquiry into last summer's bushfires points to positives and to room for improvement.

As they raked through the ashes of the 2002-03 Victorian bushfires, the three members of the Esplin inquiry must at times have felt like they were walking over hot coals. The inquiry headed by Emergency Services Commissioner Bruce Esplin received 273 submissions and met more than 400 people in the course of its investigations. The panel listened to people who thought they had been abandoned by firefighters, others who believe the best solution is to burn the bush in order to save it, land managers, fire brigades, conservationists, farmers and a range of other interested parties. From the outset, though, it was clear that Victoria's fifth major bushfire inquiry since 1939 was to be a learning exercise and not merely one in finger pointing or apportioning blame.

That the findings of the Esplin report were not splashed across the front of the newspapers around the state is itself rather revealing. The debate over how well or otherwise the state's emergency services coped with Victoria's biggest fires since Black Friday 1939 can be reduced to a simple bottom line. Some 1.3 million hectares were burned. One life was lost fighting the fires - ironically in a flash flood - and 41 homes were destroyed. Losses also included 200 other buildings, 3000 kilometres of fencing and 11,000 head of stock. Yet it is perhaps more important to pay attention to what was saved as much as what was lost. It is also worth reflecting on the comparative impact of bushfires past, such as Ash Wednesday, when 47 Victorians were killed and more than 2000 homes destroyed in fires covering less than one-sixth of the land area. Central to the Esplin report is an acceptance that Victoria is a highly fire-prone environment. It also recognises that over the years much has been learned about fire management. Of course there were things that might have been done better last summer. The report properly highlights these. Among 148 recommendations, it has called for more research into fuel reduction burning so that it is carried out effectively and not according to some vague mythology of past Aboriginal and colonial practices. A national approach to aerial fire-fighting resources and better use of local knowledge on the ground are also called for. The Government has accepted all of the recommendations in principle. It must also commit to implementing them fully and as soon as practicable.

Victorians for their part should accept that the cycle of fire in their state is continuous and that everyone has a role in preparing for and combating bushfires. The report rightly praises the efforts of the fire fighters and land managers and their commitment in fighting the fires. Most importantly, the report found "no evidence of major systemic failure", a rare acknowledgement that the responsible agencies basically got it right. This is a sensible review from which should come further improvements in bushfire management in Victoria.